Nadine Dorries abortion proposals

hurfdurf · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:25

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/downing-street-uturn-abortion-proposals

This is fantastic news imo. One of the main reasons I could never vote Tory is because of the religious right in its depths and their stance on social issues, seeing them get any kind of leeway was a bit of a shock and very unpleasant. Religion should bare no part in giving advice on abortion to those not looking for religious services, and this was a clear attempt at religions, mainly Catholics, looking to take advantage of vulnerable people in their times of need.

spudbynight · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:26

Looking at things objectively do you not agree that any advice given should be from someone without a vested financial interest? That seems pretty logical to me.

hurfdurf · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:29

spudbynight said:
Looking at things objectively do you not agree that any advice given should be from someone without a vested financial interest? That seems pretty logical to me.

From my admittedly limited experience with abortion providers, the options, services and advice are more than enough and perfectly reasonable both from the NHS and Private institutions.

spudbynight · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:33

hurfdurf said:
From my admittedly limited experience with abortion providers, the options, services and advice are more than enough and perfectly reasonable both from the NHS and Private institutions.

What is your objection to the proposal that advice is available from parties without a vested financial interest? There is no obligation to take that advice, the proposal is just that it is available.

I fail to see any rational argument against this.

Kemik · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:34

spudbynight said:
Looking at things objectively do you not agree that any advice given should be from someone without a vested financial interest? That seems pretty logical to me.

Any decent charities will have controls in place to mitigate the conflict of interest.

spudbynight · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:38

Kemik said:
Any decent charities will have controls in place to mitigate the conflict of interest.

That doesn't provide an argument against the availability of counselling from a party without a vested financial interest.

Can you provide one?

Kemik · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:43

spudbynight said:
That doesn't provide an argument against the availability of counselling from a party without a vested financial interest.

Can you provide one?

No, but why can't they get that themselves? Surely there are other charities or even their GP that could offer that advice independently?

hurfdurf · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:51

Kemik said:
Any decent charities will have controls in place to mitigate the conflict of interest.

Religions are not looking to have any controls, they set up counselling sessions with the aim of persuading people not to have abortions under the guise of unbiased advice.

http://www.whas11.com/news/Battle-over-abortion-is-once-again-igniting-69332627.html

Take a look at this example, the Christians have opened up a clinic opposite the only legal abortion centre in Kentucky, named it the same name as the legal clinic and attempt to trick people inside, only to then offer them free baby stuff and persuade them not to have an abortion.

So imagine, a girl has just been raped, she is now pregnant, rather than suffer and have her rapists baby, she goes to the abortion clinic but is tricked into getting a session at the charities clinic (people pretending to be simple passers by telling her that is the place she is looking for/same name on the building, etc etc), not the planned parenthood. Inside, she has to suffer the additional trauma of being told she is a murderer, going to hell, and other such religious based nonsense, on top of having to deal with being raped and going through an abortion.

I do not want to see anything even remotely resembling that in the UK.

spudbynight · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:53

Kemik said:
No, but why can't they get that themselves? Surely there are other charities or even their GP that could offer that advice independently?

Why can't they get the counselling provided at present themselves?

All that is being proposed is an increase in choice. I would have thought the "pro-choice" lobby would be all in favour of that.

I still haven't heard an argument from anyone as to why offering more choice in counselling is a bad thing.

spudbynight · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:55

hurfdurf said:
Religions are not looking to have any controls, they set up counselling sessions with the aim of persuading people not to have abortions under the guise of unbiased advice.

http://www.whas11.com/news/Battle-over-abortion-is-once-again-igniting-69332627.html

Take a look at this example, the Christians have opened up a clinic opposite the only legal abortion centre in Kentucky, named it the same name as the legal clinic and attempt to trick people inside, only to then offer them free baby stuff and persuade them not to have an abortion.

So imagine, a girl has just been raped, she is now pregnant, rather than suffer and have her rapists baby, she goes to the abortion clinic but is tricked into getting a session at the charities clinic (people pretending to be simple passers by telling her that is the place she is looking for/same name on the building, etc etc), not the planned parenthood. Inside, she has to suffer the additional trauma of being told she is a murderer, going to hell, and other such religious based nonsense, on top of having to deal with being raped and going through an abortion.

I do not want to see anything even remotely resembling that in the UK.

Thats a strange example and most certainly not what is being proposed.

stockhausen · 1 Sep 2011 at 23:56

Women receiving advice from pregnancy counselling centres run by faith-based and anti-abortion organisations are subjected to scaremongering, emotive language and inaccurate information about abortion, according to an undercover investigation by a pro-choice charity.
...
A survey of 10 centres operated by Christian and anti-abortion organisations found evidence in most of them of poor practice and factually incorrect advice, while the quality of counselling differs widely. Advice ranged from scaremongering – linking abortion with breast cancer, for example – to actions apparently designed to steer women away from abortion, such as showing them baby clothes and talking about "the child". (The Grauniad)

But I guess that is OK, because the faith-based and anti-abortion organisations aren't providing biased information for financial gain :rolleyes:

Tefal · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:08

The problem it seems stems not from the proposal but from the strange way the charities are set up.

If the proposal was implemented with a sufficiently long lead time that charities could separate themselves out and the nhs set up a full fledged 3rd party counselling service it would be fine and probbaly the best.

but that would require a lot of planning and cost and restructuring.

And that's looking at the proposal in a full "best light" as being of pure intentions, i'm sure in reality it was conceived to be rushed though quickly and implemented quicker i na way that would break the current system in the most disruptive and high collateral way possible to make headlines and reduce abortion counts + increase the negative after effects from people being thrown out of counselling in the hopes of getting a good news story out of a botched home job or suicide after an abortion.

ahhh i love duplicity.

spudbynight · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:10

stockhausen said:
But I guess that is OK, because the faith-based and anti-abortion organisations aren't providing biased information for financial gain

Women receiving advice from pregnancy counselling centres run by faith-based and anti-abortion organisations are subjected to scaremongering, emotive language and inaccurate information about abortion, according to an undercover investigation by a pro-choice charity.

That is a bit low even for the Grauniad.

We are not looking at a proposal to force women to speak with Pro-Life bodies, just to have that as an option.

Surely allowing a woman the option of hearing both arguments is preferable than giving her biased advice with no alternative?

I still haven't heard any sort of valid argument against it.

Tefal · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:12

hurfdurf said:
she goes to the abortion clinic but is tricked into getting a session at the charities clinic (people pretending to be simple passers by telling her that is the place she is looking for/same name on the building, etc etc), not the planned parenthood.

wait what?

You think these places employ random people to walk up and down the road in front of the building looking for lost/distressed women and saying "ahh ey up love that's the abortion clinic you're clearly looking for over there" and pointing to a random building with the old name crossed out and "Planned parenthood" misspelled on a improvised banner over the top?

Or do you just think that rape victims wonder around the streets asking strangers for the location of the nearest abortion clinic?

hurfdurf · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:13

stockhausen said:
But I guess that is OK, because the faith-based and anti-abortion organisations aren't providing biased information for financial gain

Its all part of the same recruitment drive for religion, which is thankfully dying out over time as people get smarter and informed, but recruitment equals financial incentives in the long run.

Danthus · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:15

Maybe we should also be looking at the reason for the abortion?

Tefal · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:17

OldCoals said:
Maybe we should also be looking at the reason for the abortion?

The result of a cockup with the condom?

Vonhelmet · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:17

The article barely mentions religion, and yet that's what gets leapt on... Good work OCUK. One of the key points of the article is that the amendment could make it difficult for secular charities to provide advice.

Vonhelmet · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:18

Tefal said:
The result of a cockup with the condom?

Abortion is the new contraception.

hurfdurf · 2 Sep 2011 at 00:19

Tefal said:
wait what?

You think these places employ random people to walk up and down the road in front of the building looking for lost/distressed women and saying "ahh ey up love that's the abortion clinic you're clearly looking for over there" and pointing to a random building with the old name crossed out and "Planned parenthood" misspelled on a improvised banner over the top?

Or do you just think that rape victims wonder around the streets asking strangers for the location of the nearest abortion clinic?

I don't think, I know they do in that instance.

It's gotten so bad that if you watch the video, the abortion centre relies on volunteer security guards or, "abortion clinic escorts" to protect users of planned parenthood from the scathing attacks abortion protesters try.

These include dressing up as abortion clinic escorts and escorting them to their clinic rather than the Planned Parenthood centre, actively attempting to mimic the clothing and jackets warned by the official escorts.

- this girl has asked where the PP centre is, an official escort tries to show her the way, the tall man who is wearing the same jacket pretending to be with the escort tries to block her path and says things to her.

Nadine Dorries abortion proposals

Capodecina